Intentional integral affixing of a preferred-personality-created attribute to a base article is widely recognized by memorabilia dealers and collectors as a way to add collectible value to the article. Such intentional affixing involves forming the preferred-personality-created attribute as an integral attribute means for creating and/or enhancing attractiveness of the article to collectors of memorabilia articles. Indicating or implying that the article is of a limited edition production is widely recognized by dealers and collectors as a way to further increase collectible value of the article.
By merely forming and affixing a preferred-personality-created attribute on a base article of relatively insubstantial worth, a preferred personality (a sports personality, an entertainment personality, a political personality, or a like personality) may transform the base article into a memorabilia article of substantial value. In the present marketplace, the predominant preferred-personality-created integral collectible attractiveness attribute is the genuine autograph (an autograph personally created by a preferred personality and not a facsimile thereof).
The genuine autograph of the memorabilia article created to appeal to collectors should not be confused with the non-collector-targeted utilitarian signature of a personal check, real-estate-transfer document, employment contract, or like instrument created for a utilitarian purpose without intent to create attractiveness to collectors. Likewise, no other collector-targeted attribute should be regarded as synonymous with any indicium or marking substantially created for a non-collector-oriented, utilitarian use.
In the current marketplace, collectors are offered genuinely autographed memorabilia articles encompassing a considerable diversity of base articles, including: items originally manufactured substantially to appeal to collectors (for example, trading cards, fine art lithographic prints, hall-of-fame memorabilia items, and commemorative philatelic items); items originally manufactured as sporting equipment (for example, baseballs, baseball bats, footballs, basketballs, hockey pucks, and sports uniforms); and items originally manufactured for non-collector-targeted utilitarian purposes (for example, 3-by-5 inch index cards and general news periodicals).
Thus, collectors are given a very diverse assortment of kinds of base articles from which to choose but are largely restricted to only one major kind of preferred-personality-created attribute: the genuine autograph. There is a need to give collectors greater choice by providing at least a second major kind of preferred-personality-created integral collectible attractiveness attribute. The availability of a second major kind of preferred-personality-created attribute would make possible the manufacture of a significant diversity of memorabilia articles heretofore unknown.
The background art encompasses affixing certain other attributes to base articles. Among these attributes are holograms, offset-printed identification number indicia, and facsimile autographs. Such kinds of attributes are not regarded as preferred-personality-created attributes and generally do not bring as much collectible attractiveness and collectible value to articles as preferred-personality-created attributes.
The power of a preferred-personality-created attribute to increase the value of a base article is typically exponentially greater than that of a hologram or like attribute not created by a preferred personality. For example, the 15-cent high value (Beckett Baseball Card Monthly, September 1994, page 58) of the hologram-bearing 1992 Upper Deck Extended Dave Winfield Baseball Card is increased more than 100-fold to $19.00 (The Score Board, Inc., Advertisement, Sports Collectors Digest, Sep. 9, 1994, page 8) by merely affixing thereto a preferred-personality-created attribute in the form of a genuine autograph. This is a definitive example of the failure of a hologram to bring to an article even one percent of the value conferred by affixing a major preferred-personality-created attribute.
One of the biggest problems faced by collectors is determining whether or not the script-written name of a preferred personality on an article is a genuine autograph. The quantity of fraudulently autographed items in the present marketplace is mindboggling. For example, a television interview with a person who had been convicted of selling items bearing counterfeit autographs revealed that this one person had sold "more than 75,000 fake signatures" (Zachary Reid, "A Closer Look: The Score Board Cracking Down On Fake Autographs," Tuff Stuff, April 1993, pages 27-28). The magnitude of the problem caused by items bearing bogus autographs has become so intolerable that legislation has been initiated in a number of states to legally require a letter of authenticity for each sale of an item bearing an autograph (Scott Newman, "Faking The Romance: Fraud And Counterfeiting. Few People In The Memorabilia Industry Want To Talk About It. But That's The Only Way To Correct It," Tuff Stuff, February 1993, pages 116-118).
Fraudulent autographs are often produced by counterfeiters intending to sell these imitations to unsuspecting customers. This intentional counterfeiting for illicit profit is not the only way through which bogus autographs enter the memorabilia marketplace. Many sports players are overwhelmed by requests for autographs from fans and other collectors. To meet this heavy demand, a number of players resort to using ghost writers, autopenning machines and rubber stamps to affix imitation autographs to items. Usually such player-authorized imitations are not made with any intent by the players to deceive fans for illicit profit. In fact, such imitation autographs are normally distributed free to fans, at a financial cost to a player or the player's team, resulting in a loss, not a profit. Nevertheless, despite the goodwill intended by this player-authorized creation of imitations, these fake autographs are substantially just as bogus and worthless to collectors as the fraudulent autographs made for illicit profit by unauthorized counterfeiters.
Flooding the marketplace are sports-related autographed articles that contain nothing incorporated as parts of the articles to authenticate the genuineness of the autographs. The average collector or investor is often left with no meaningful basis on which to judge the authenticity of the autograph on a purchased article other than the "good faith" of the selling dealer in a marketplace where many dealers have dubious reputations and where distrust abounds. Collectors who invest in such articles frequently find that these cannot readily be resold to dealers because of the nearly ever-present distrust of autographed items.
To overcome the widespread worries of investors and other collectors about bogus autographs, a number of memorabilia dealers and companies have produced devices to assure collectors of the genuineness of autographs being offered. Most of the articles supposedly authenticated under this background art are associated with "extrinsic devices" (devices physically separate from the involved memorabilia articles).
A particularly prevalent form of extrinsic device is the certificate-of-authenticity (a certificate or letter guaranteeing the authenticity of the involved autograph and/or article). A certificate-of-authenticity may be created before an autographed article is sold to a collector, at the time the article is acquired by the collector, or after the article has been acquired by the collector. A certificate-of-authenticity may be based on hindsight "authentication" by a handwriting expert years after the creation of an autograph. Such hindsight "authentication," at best, reflects expert or educated opinion and not witness-based authentication. A certificate-of-authenticity may be notarized (Richard Albersheim, "The Autograph Report: What's Selling And Alternatives To Card Shows," Tuff Stuff, November 1993, page 139).
The limited value of a certificate-of-authenticity or like device is well recognized by experts in the field of sports memorabilia. Such certificates are too often of little or no value in protecting collectors from con-artists peddling fraudulently autographed items (Mike Breeden, Scott Gregg, Michael Litos, Dennis Madigan, and Jim Warren II, "Certificates Of Authenticity, Are Two Signatures Worth More Than One?," Tuff Stuff, February 1994, page 162; Jim Hawkins, "Eye Of The Hawk: Some Aren't Worth Paper They're Printed On, Certificate Of Authenticity Only As Good As Issuer's Reputation," Sports Collectors Digest, Oct. 21, 1994, page 24; Terry Melia, "Finding The Comfort Zone, Are Certificates Of Authenticity Worth Even The Pieces Of Paper They're Printed On?," Encyclopedia of Sports Memorabilia & Price Guide, December 1994/January 1995, pages 8-10).
That the written contents of a certificate-of-authenticity are not physically integral with the autographed article being authenticated allows easy disassociation of the critical authentication data from the article. Such a certificate-of-authenticity may become lost or become associated, by accident or fraudulent action, with a bogusly autographed article.
The authentication system of Molee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,267,756) includes a kind of certificate-of-authenticity. Molee et al. teach affixing a first hologram with a unique code number to an article and a second hologram with the same unique code number to a certificate-of-authenticity. Molee et al. further teach a registration "hotline" entity having a master record or list containing the unique code number and information on the article to which the number applies. The system of Molee et al. further includes extrinsic means for a purchaser to register the article by mail or telephone with the entity. These extrinsic means allow a customer to later confirm information about the article through a registration "hotline."
The certificate-of-authenticity of Molee et al. overcomes some of the problems inherent in other certificates-of-authenticity of the background art. However, Molee et al. fail to provide a less cumbersome way to authenticate an autograph. In fact, Molee et al. add cumbersomeness and remoteness to the authentication process by introducing customer communication with a registration "hotline" entity. If the entity eventually shuts down its "hotline" or goes out-of-business, a customer may be left with no way to gain access to the master record or list. The system of Molee et al. is excessively dependent on authentication means extrinsic from the article being authenticated.
Although seemingly recognizing the integral collectible enhancement power of the genuine autograph, Molee et al. fail to present a second major kind of preferred-personality-created integral collectible attractiveness attribute.
The value of the hologram of Molee et al. is in its function as an authentication device substantially dependent on the continuing existence and availability of such extrinsic devices as the certificate-of-authenticity and master record or list.
Molee et al. teach away from comprehensively self-authenticating memorabilia articles having integral authentication attribute means for holding the detailed (comprehensive) authentication data printed on their certificate-of-authenticity and stored in their master record or list.
The prior art clearly emphasizes the use of extrinsic devices to authenticate the predominant kind of preferred-personality-created integral collectible attractiveness attribute (the genuine autograph).
The prior art shows the failure of those of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for a non-autographic, integral attribute having the potential to function at, near or above the level of the genuine autograph as a convenient, expeditious and economical preferred-personality-created attribute means for making articles substantially more attractive to memorabilia collectors.
The prior art shows the failure of those of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for a method of producing a memorabilia article including two major kinds of preferred-personality-created attributes (the genuine autograph and a non-autographic attribute) capable of synergistically functioning together as means for substantially increasing attractiveness to memorabilia collectors.
The prior art shows the failure of those of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for a second major kind of preferred-personality-created attribute capable of fulfilling the role of a non-autographic memorial marking or indicium having an appeal to memorabilia collectors substantially greater than the appeal of a hologram or like device.
The prior art shows the failure of those of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for a method of producing a comprehensively self-authenticating memorabilia article having integral authentication attributes directly providing detailed authentication data to a collector viewing the article.
Some notable preferred personalities have significantly reduced or substantially complete loss of ability to create and affix a preferred-personality-created attribute in the form of a legible and consistent handwritten autograph. Such notable preferred personalities suffer from paralysis of limbs, limitation of manual locomotion, blindness, and other handicaps resulting from diabetes, strokes, severe arthritis, disabling accidents, and like causes.
The problems resulting from writing-handicapped preferred personalities being unable to meet the demands of fans and other collectors for genuine autographs are well recognized by memorabilia experts (Mark A. Baker, Baseball Autograph Handbook, First Edition, 1990; Mark A. Baker, Baseball Autograph Handbook, Second Edition, 1991; Scott Crowder, "In The World Of Sports," Autograph Collector, October 1993, pages 58-59; Dave Miedema, "Up Autograph Alley: Hall Of Famers Make Autograph News," Sports Collectors Digest, Jan. 30, 1987, pages 176, 184 & 192; Dave Miedema, "Autographs: Unhealthy, Health Problems Limit The Appearances Of Older Hall Of Famers," Baseball Cards, October 1987, pages 26 & 28; Dave Miedema, "Autographs: Regular Guys, These Hall Of Famers Are Pretty Good About Their Autographs," Baseball Cards, November 1987, pages 18 & 20).
Despite these well-known problems facing writing-handicapped preferred personalities, those of ordinary skill in the prior art have not offered substantial remedial inventions.
The prior art shows the failure of those of ordinary skill in the art to teach a major kind of preferred-personality-created integral collectible attractiveness attribute which may be conveniently created and affixed by a handwriting-disabled preferred personality.
Certain kinds of base articles have no surfaces of sufficient size to allow a preferred personality, especially one having a lengthy signature, to conveniently and legibly affix normal renditions of his or her genuine autograph. Golf balls and standard-sized milkcaps are examples of such base articles having limited writing space. Furthermore, collectors often favor the placement or restriction of a genuine autograph or other attribute to a specific surface region of an article (for example, collectors generally desire that a preferred personality creating a single-autograph baseball affix his or her autograph to the "sweet spot" of the ball).
Therefore, a need clearly exists for a second major kind of preferred-personality-created integral collectible attractiveness attribute that may be conveniently and legibly affixed to base articles having limited surface areas. And a need clearly exists for a method to restrict the placement of a preferred-personality-created integral collectible attractiveness attribute to a predetermined portion of a base article. The prior art demonstrates those of ordinary skill in the art have failed to adequately address these needs.
The prior art substantially limits collector choice to articles comprising only one major kind of preferred-personality-created integral collectible attractiveness attribute. And the background art substantially limits collector choice to an availability of comprehensive authentication devices that are extrinsic, easily disassociated from memorablia articles, too frequently dubious, often remote, and/or sometimes dependent on an authentication entity remaining solvent in business.
Those of ordinary skill in the prior art have not addressed the need for a second major kind of preferred-personality-created integral collectible attractiveness attribute suitable as a: (1) means for integrally creating and/or enhancing collectible attractiveness of an article to memorabilia collectors; (2) means for integrally and synergistically interacting with a genuine autograph on an article to enhance attractiveness of the article to memorabilia collectors; (3) means for a handwriting-disabled preferred personality to affix conveniently and legibly to an article as an attribute attractive to memorabilia collectors; (4) means for a preferred personality to affix conveniently and legibly, as an attribute attractive to memorabilia collectors, to an article lacking a surface region sufficient for the placement of a normal genuine autograph; and (5) means for a preferred personality to affix and substantially cover a predetermined, discretely-bounded surface area of an article as a personally created marking attractive to memorabilia collectors.
Those of ordinary skill in the prior art have also substantially failed to address the need for widespread use of a memorabilia-collector-targeted integral comprehensive authentication attribute as a means for integrally and comprehensively authenticating one or more preferred-personality-created attributes on an intentionally-created memorabilia article so as to make the article more appealing to memorabilia collectors. This failure of those of ordinary skill in the prior art has resulted in the substantial lack of a diversity of collector-targeted, comprehensively self-authenticating memorabilia articles in the marketplace.
The present invention overcomes the above-described deficiencies of the prior art and fulfills the above-described needs not addressed by those of ordinary skill in the prior art.